Talk:Rape

Religion

Shouldn't a section about religion (the views and the response to rape that religions have) be added? I think it's important, because historically laws and social norms have been based to a very great extent on religious views; and religion continues to play a major role today and influences the legal systems of many (most?) countries.2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:ADDD (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

List of notables, Part 2

I have brought the discussion that I began here last September over to the BLP talk page, as was suggested to me here previously. Editors are encouraged to voice their viewpoints there. Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

UN Multi-country Study (informal edit suggestion)

Those with more knowledge of this article may want to introduce content based on the results of an extensive (>10,000 interviews) U.N. study in several Asian and Pacific countries:

• 10 Sept 2013 Report in The Lancet:

Jewkes, Rachel; et al. (2013). "Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: findings from the UN Multi-country Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific". Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70069-X. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)

• Discussed more informally in The Washington Post:

Reese, Diana (September 11, 2013). "Violence against women widespread; U.N. study of six Asian countries examines why". The Washington Post.

Also, consider for inclusion in the article Rape statistics. — RCraig09 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation 8

It's a dead link, and needs to be replaced. Spacenut42 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

HIV Virgin myth

MrSativa writes "What's required as proof about a highly incendiary myth is research and sound surveys, not media statements by NGOs (including HRW). If Rachel Jewkes cannot find support for it, find someone who can" (edit summary 16:10, 30 September 2013). It appears that even Jewkes a) accepts that the myth exists and b) accepts that there have been cases in which it has been the principal motivation for rape: "The idea that having sex with a virgin cleanses you of AIDS does exist in South Africa and there have been reported cases of this as a motivating factor for child rape, but the predominant evidence suggests that this is infrequently the case," Dr Jewkes says. She quotes Mr Luke Lamprecht, the manager of the Teddy Bear Clinic in Johannesburg, which is the referral point for all child sex abuse cases in the metropolis. According to him, he has only seen one child rape case where the perpetrator believed the myth." [1] [2] Also, the criticism quoted in this article is merely a letter to the editor, not an academic study. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Paul Barlow. Like I noted in this article's edit history during this dispute, I discussed this matter with Jmh649 (Doc James), and there are various scholarly sources confirming that the myth exists. Here are the latest edits concerning this matter, with one showing me having added two scholarly sources taken from the HIV/AIDS article (which also covers this topic):[3][4][5]. Additionally, I've considered the aforemetioned criticism that MrSativa added to be WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I would dispute the relevance of the Jewkes/Epstein assertion that "this claim is predicated on racist assumptions about the amorality of African men." If you believe that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS your actions are hardly "amoral". Trying to cure AIDS, however misguided ones' ideas about it may be, is surely morally defensible. However, Jewkes apparently considers it to be perfectly acceptable to say that "much of this violence at women and girls might be explained by sex inequalities, a culture of male sexual entitlement, and the climate of relative impunity for rape." Apparently, saying there is a culture of male sexual entitlement and impunity does not impute "amorality" to African men, and nor do assertions that Cape Town gangs are "notoriously brutal". Her position seems to be fundamentally confused and her knee-jerk claims of "racist assumptions" are founded on nothing more than assertion. If this were an academic study of such assumptions, it might be legitimate, but it's only a letter to the editor. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And here are the latest edits concerning this matter:[6][7][8][9][10]. As seen there, MrSativa changed his wording; the main problem is that he is still casting doubt on the fact that the myth exists. The lesser problem, at least a problem to me and you, Paul, is that he is still adding that criticism text; that's an interesting analysis you've given on it. Rather than at all asserting that the act of a male having sex with a female virgin by consensual means in order to cure HIV/AIDS is amoral (whether she knows that he has HIV/AIDS or not), they are arguing that a male raping a woman and especially a girl (in some cases, girls as young as infants) to cure HIV/AIDS is what is amoral; I personally can't argue with that. But I do understand your point on that matter (whether you mean one of those actions or both). Either way, MrSativa needs to stop WP:Edit warring, WP:Editorializing, and rather discuss these matters if he insists on his text being in that section (which he clearly does). He also needs to realize that waiting until he is outside of the WP:3RR time frame and then reverting again is still a blockable offense. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say raping woman to cure AIDS is immoral, not just amoral. So is raping a woman due to a sense of "sexual entitlement" or because you can get away with it, which are motivations Jewes apparently thinks do not imply "amorality" at all! But of course this is a marginal issue. There are numerous sources which clearly state as fact that this myth exists, and Jewkes herself is one of those sources. The only point of contention is Jewkes and her co-writers take the view that this is a very rare motivation for rape and/or child abuse, while other commentators think it plays a more significant role. If MrSativa can find a reliable source asserting that the Virgin-myth is itself a myth, then and only then can we add that claim. And, yes, you are right that repeated reverts against consensus and against sources will ultimately lead to sanctions even without violations of 3RR. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether the myth exists in anyone's mind. If one person believed it, you could say that 'the myth exists'. But if that person never acted on it, it could have no impact on HIV infection, or child rape.

So the question is one of quantification. How many people believe this myth, and does it have a numerical impact on HIV infection or child abuse. The original text was that it was widespread, 'in many parts of Africa', and that 'many girls' are raped because of it.

So far I have seen no study or survey prove how widespread this myth is, only anecdotal statements.

The real problem is that none of the links that illustrate the presence of the childrape myth (currently 54, 55, 56, and 57) actually lead to research. I would think we can all agree that it is irrelevant whether the child rape myth exists in western observers' minds, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSativa (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned the only question is whether the sources are reliable or not. It is not for us to say that their research is not good enough, unless other researchers have reached that conclusion. I'm not quite sure what kind of "survey" you would expect to prove how widespread the idea is. This is the "Rape" article, so the story is only relevant to the issue of rape as such. Clearly, as has been mentioned, consensual sex of an infected man with with a virgin would be equally likely to faciliate the spread of the disease, but that's not relevant to this article. Your edits tried to add claims, unsupported by any sources, that the very existence of this myth is disputable. And yet it is not disputed by anyone. The only dispute concerns its effect on rape and/or child sex abuse (defined as a form of rape). Obviously the real answer is that we can't say for certain, but that several sources state that the effect is significant. Jewkes et al say it is insignificant, but do not deny that examples exist. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading your comments, I see a kind of blurring of two quite separate claims. The first is the myth that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. You then seem to coflate this with a supposed "child rape myth" that "exists in western observers' minds", referring presumably to the "myth" created (supposedly by 'Westerners') that the virgin-sex belief causes child-rape. The problem with your edits was that you were focussed on disputing the existence of the first myth, the existence of which is not disputed at all. The second alleged myth is a separate issue. It may be true that the virgin-sex belief has not led to a significant increase in child-rape, but we would need good sources to justify this assertion (at the moment all we have are letters to the editor, which themselves offer nothing but anecdotal evidence). But we do have solid sources saying that it either is - or is believed to be - a causal factor. What matters is that we represent the sources correctly. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Paul B's latest comments. I'm back in this section to simply document this latest edit here on this talk page because it completes the latest edits on this matter worth noting and will therefore help serve this section when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Some, often unidentified, aid industry organisations claim that around 60% of combatants in Congo are HIV-infected.[51] However, these selfinterested claims contrast starkly with the very low HIV infection rate in the DRC, recorded by the best scientific information we have, which is the DHS survey, which measures 1.3% HIV prevalence nationwide.[52]"

That must be removed. "Selfinterested claims" is POV and unencyclopedic. It also gives WP:UNDUE to that issue, and it also contains WP:OR. 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1AE3 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)